Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[SCALCO]

There was a good exchange going between pneuma and PCM…
Any chance PCM could respond to the last posts by pneuma?

 

[PC_Master]

It seems one of my email-subscribed threads still existed…

In short, at this point, I think it comes down to one question. Clearly, God could have worked through, and guided people in any number of ways. The question is…how did he do it in reality? I could spend pages continuing to expound why I believe as I do, and why I believe scripture does not support the idea of a formalized church hierarchy, but in the end, those who don’t want to see anything beyond their own personal views won’t be dissuaded simply by the words of another (eloquent or otherwise). Note that I include myself in this grouping – as humans, we’re all capable of putting on blinders to the truth.

Thus, I’d rather spend my limited time praying and studying than rehashing the same arguments over and over. I realize that many reading this will choose to believe that I’m surrendering a losing argument – and if that’s how you’d like to take it, so be it. I’d just like to encourage you all to continuously study to determine the truth – and please don’t just study to try to find ways to explain Roman Catholic beliefs. Instead, look at the evidence from start to finish, and let the facts, and God, lead you.

 

[planter654]

We see no authority of Peter here. We see no “X rendered the decision and it was final” here. We also don’t see that they said “We, as the head church, say you must do this”. Instead, we see that the church in Jerusalem was concerned for the well being of their brethren. They sent a letter to encourage their brethren and clarify that they (1) did not instruct the men who had previously come down to teach as they did and (2) that they didn’t believe it was within the desires of the Holy Spirit to make such requirements.

So Paul was a pope too, then? After all, he wrote to many churches to solve matters of dispute. Why wasn’t Peter doing this?

Not as a sort of monarchal line, no.

You mean, individuals in the early church who were led by God to write certain things? Yes, indeed. You have to demonstrate that there actually was a centralized leadership before you can make claims of what it said.

Both are disobeying God.
 
 
A formalized canon -- perhaps. But then again, I don't adhere to the concept that there are no other works which might be of spiritual value. I hold that scripture is certainly among them, and contains all important truths, but still.

We certainly don't see a formalized leadership defining the four gospels and works of Paul as being canon -- and yet we see that they are commonly read and used in churches before the middle of the second century. It seems God uses more than just hierarchies to establish his truth.

False. Those guys *and their successors over many generations* established the monarchist papacy.

Simple -- that they were human beings, capable of erring. Fortunately, God knows that people can (and do) mess up, and manages to preserve his truth in spite of this. Scripture was already fairly well established at this point, and the concept of church tradition and magisterium had not yet become a major influence, so the extent of heresy is less than what we have today.
 
I'm not sure how to better explain my position. Perhaps you could tell me what's confusing you or seeming nondescript?
 
Noted.

Continued…

Jesus choose ST.Peter ( one of 12) as an apostle sent to Jerusalem. St. Paul was choosen by Jesus to be and apostles to the gentles, those who did not believe like the Romans there is a list of the churches he went to in those days.

 

[PC_Master]

But where does that say anything about one having authority over the other?

 

[SCALCO]

It seems one of my email-subscribed threads still existed…

In short, at this point, I think it comes down to one question. Clearly, God could have worked through, and guided people in any number of ways. The question is…how did he do it in reality? I could spend pages continuing to expound why I believe as I do, and why I believe scripture does not support the idea of a formalized church hierarchy, but in the end, those who don’t want to see anything beyond their own personal views won’t be dissuaded simply by the words of another (eloquent or otherwise). Note that I include myself in this grouping – as humans, we’re all capable of putting on blinders to the truth.

Thus, I’d rather spend my limited time praying and studying than rehashing the same arguments over and over. I realize that many reading this will choose to believe that I’m surrendering a losing argument – and if that’s how you’d like to take it, so be it. I’d just like to encourage you all to continuously study to determine the truth – and please don’t just study to try to find ways to explain Roman Catholic beliefs. Instead, look at the evidence from start to finish, and let the facts, and God, lead you.

This is an old argument that seemed to be leading to something new and then it suddently stopped. I thought pnuema offered a very compelling argument from scripture that does support the idea of a formalized church hierarchy.

In regards to the truth, the church, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is intended to proclaim the truth with no uncertainty. I am curious to hear a non-Catholic christian perspective of this.

If each individual claims to receive an interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit, but are all proclaiming different things and contradicting each other, can we still have “the church is the pillar and support of the truth”? If this is an invisible church united in spirit and truth, where do we see it supporting and proclaiming the truth? Where is communion celebrated? Where do I get baptised? Who are my leaders? This list of questions could go on and on. If THE church is to be united in truth and spirit, it would be a contradiction to say God intended the church to have such uncertainty.

I only see one system where this works, where the church is assisted by the Holy Spirit with only one interpretation and has teaching authority.

 

[SCALCO]

If all Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible , then why do your conclusions - based on guidance from the Holy Spirit - different from other Christians who also claim guidance from the Holy Spirit?

God Bless,
Michael

Right after i posted my message, I read this post from mike that was asking basically the same thing.

 

[PC_Master]

I thought pnuema offered a very compelling argument from scripture that does support the idea of a formalized church hierarchy.

However, since you began predisposed in favor of that very idea, it seems that statement isn’t without bias – just as my own current view (that the case is far from proven) can’t be said to be totally objective, no matter how objective I think it is.

In regards to the truth, the church, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is intended to proclaim the truth with no uncertainty. I am curious to hear a non-Catholic christian perspective of this.

The church, as in, each and every follower of Christ, both individually and collectively, are to share the truth with those they encounter. But in the end, it comes down to the working of the holy spirit in each individual, both as to how well they understand the truth and as to whether the person being exposed to the truth will accept it or not.

If each individual claims to receive an interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit, but are all proclaiming different things and contradicting each other, can we still have “the church is the pillar and support of the truth”?

This is the wrong question. Instead the question should be – since each and every believer (in any denomination) does not agree 100% with one another on every matter of faith, how can the church (that is, the followers of Christ as a whole) be seen as the “pillar and support” of the truth?

The problem is that you like to separate the RCC from all other churches, and then say “see, we agree with ourselves, but no two of them agree with one another”. However, I would point out that there were points at which these other churches were united as a single church. For instance, the western and eastern portions of “the church” have the same ancestry. At some point before the official split of those two groups, we see a single group (consisting of both east and west), yet with great division in it.

Even since then, we’ve seen the RCC split with many other denominations. How about the pre-Vatican-2 Catholics, who claim the post-V2-RCC is heretical? At one point these groups were united, and yet there was such disunity within them.

You cannot honestly claim (note that I’m not asking – I’m stating the fact) that all, or even most members of the RCC are in agreement with one another on all matters of faith (either declared officially or not). I realize that you would say that those who disagree are heretical, or not “truly” members of the church, even if they are in the membership book of the RCC. However, that leads to a more tricky predicament – if all of the members of the RCC do not support the teachings of the RCC and interpret them in exactly the same way (and this isn’t even considering the “undefined” areas, which are just as important), how is an individual to know which source is correct?

Again, if unanimity is required for validity, even the RCC does not possess this, nor has it ever.

If this is an invisible church united in spirit and truth, where do we see it supporting and proclaiming the truth?

World-wide. But you’re trying to come up with some earthly way of measuring or quantifying it, which cannot (and should not) be done.

But let’s look at the RCC for a second, in regards to truth – it’s obviously deficient in many areas. For example, the concept of absolute truth requires that there are a set number of papal statements which are in fact infallible. Yet a thread I started on the subject gave me a total of no less than 3 different lists of statements, and a few other opinions going toward the extent of “whatever the RCC says is infallible until it says differently”. Something so simple, so easy to understand, and yet it’s unanswerable.

Where is communion celebrated? Where do I get baptised? Who are my leaders? This list of questions could go on and on.

I understand your confusion, and I also understand that it is the security this provides to so many individuals that is a powerful reason to believe that the RCC is correct. But you’re still assuming we need earthly leadership, and that we need earthly individuals to tell us exactly how all this works. In short, you remove the Holy Spirit from the mix.

If THE church is to be united in truth and spirit, it would be a contradiction to say God intended the church to have such uncertainty.

The church is united in spirit (desire). The truth is absolute. Our understanding thereof may falter, but that’s no different than with the RCC – an individual RC’s beliefs on an issue can be in error without them being considered not a part of the RCC.

You’re assuming that the whole church is to be completely and totally united in teaching and doctrine. This is the error. Only God himself possesses the complete understanding of the truth. Thus, it is to be expected that men will fail at times as they try to teach, and that God will pick up the pieces, so to speak.

I only see one system where this works, where the church is assisted by the Holy Spirit with only one interpretation and has teaching authority.

Actually, most independent baptist churches claim the same assistance, guidance, and authority. And, most of the individuals in a given baptist church agree with one another on virtually every doctrine of major significance too! Does this mean they’re right? Nope. It just means they agree with each other. Whether or not what they believe is the truth is an entirely different matter. The same is true for the RCC.

There’s no doubt that it’s teachings are highly formalized and regulated. The question is (1) is this agreement actually a sign of the true church (as the RCC claims it to be) and (2) is what’s being taught actually the truth?

 

[SCALCO]

PCM, Thank you for taking time to share your perspective. Not sure I agree or not, but you have some interestinsg points.

I hadn’t really planned on getting involved in a long discussion due to time constraints, but I was particularily interested in this issue. If anyone else wants to share their perspective, I would still be interested although I will be mainly taking notes.

 

[Teflon93]

Same old sleight of hand from PCM.

Here’s the bare bones:

1. Protestants claim that the Church referred to in Scripture is invisible, nondenominational, and includes the various Protestant denominations.
2. Catholics and Orthodox point out that since Protestants completely disagree on all doctrine not contained in the Nicene Creed, this can’t possibly be so—two contradictory things cannot be simultaneously true, much less THE Truth the Church holds.
3. Protestants ignore the argument and say, “Catholics aren’t unanimous”.

It’s pure sophistry, and the mark of illogic and rank bias.

Root for your team, wave their jersey, but at least respect the debate enough to address the point without resort to such obvious and silly dodges.

If you really care about Truth, try holding all contenders for Christ’s Church to the exact same standard. Serious interlocutors have expounded on this standard above by describing the Church of Christ as articulated in Scripture.

This presents a big problem for denominations which have strayed very far afield from the Church. Those who study it are likely to join 1.3 billion of their brothers and sisters in the true Church.

Thus, the resort to games on the part of the Anything But Catholic crowd.

 

[PC_Master]

PCM, Thank you for taking time to share your perspective. Not sure I agree or not, but you have some interestinsg points.

Well thanks. At least it’s good to hear that you’ve considered my point of view enough to be interested by it. It seems like so few actually care to learn or hear the opinions of others – most here seem to be trying to justify their own views, no matter the cost.

I hadn’t really planned on getting involved in a long discussion due to time constraints, but I was particularily interested in this issue. If anyone else wants to share their perspective, I would still be interested although I will be mainly taking notes.

Same for me – I try to check back in on these forums now and then, even though work and school take up a lot of my time.

Same old sleight of hand from PCM.

Sleight of hand? Would you mind explaining what you mean by that, and more importantly, explaining which parts of my post you find anything other than clear?

Here’s the bare bones:

Please excuse the exaggeration, but this is sounding a bit like “The Gospel According to Teflon93”.

1. Protestants claim that the Church referred to in Scripture is invisible, nondenominational, and includes the various Protestant denominations.

Basically, yeah. (Though I would point out that the true church certainly does not include anyone who does not believe in the salvatory work of Christ, regardless of any denomination they may “officially” be in.)

1. Catholics and Orthodox point out that since Protestants completely disagree on all doctrine not contained in the Nicene Creed, this can’t possibly be so—two contradictory things cannot be simultaneously true, much less THE Truth the Church holds.

First, Protestants do not disagree on all doctrine. Admittedly they don’t agree on all doctrine, but as previously demonstrated, neither do Roman Catholics (or for that matter, Eastern Orthodox or any other denomination).

Second, I agree completely that two contradictory things cannot simultaneously be true. However, that doesn’t mean that none of them are true. Your argument is about as valid as me saying “Since the EO don’t agree with the RCC, neither can be the true church.”

1. Protestants ignore the argument and say, “Catholics aren’t unanimous”.

As you can see, I have addressed your argument directly (above), so point 3 is obviously false in regards to intentionally ignoring an argument. It is true, however, that RCs are not unanimous.

You missed point 4 though:

1. Roman Catholic rebuttals completely ignore the argument that “Catholics aren’t unanimous” (per Teflon’s wording), and reiterate “Catholics are unanimous and Protestants aren’t”, without actually providing proof of their claim.

This is the key to the argument. For your claim of unanimity to mean anything you have to establish 3 things (logically speaking):

1. That your church, and all its constituents, are actually unanimous in belief on every matter of faith, defined or undefined. As I’ve said, this is simply not true (and I provided an example).
2. That such unanimity actually is a sign of the true church (you can’t simply claim that it is without some support). You haven’t done this.
3. That this unanimity reflects the truth. Unanimity means nothing if it isn’t true. The whole world could be unanimous in saying that God does not exist, but that would not make it the case if in reality God does exist. Surely you see the logic of this, right?

Root for your team, wave their jersey, but at least respect the debate enough to address the point without resort to such obvious and silly dodges.

It’s not a dodge at all – rather, it’s the root of the matter. Without this point being settled, the rest seems a moot point – a useless discussion. If unanimity is not important, the RCC loses one of its claimed points of authority. If unanimity is important, but the RCC doesn’t have it, the RCC fails again. So, let’s address this.

If you really care about Truth, try holding all contenders for Christ’s Church to the exact same standard.

I do. It’s just not the standard you claim I should hold it to. Now, if you’d like to discuss the qualifications of the true church, go for it. I’d like to see how you’ll support that without modern RCC writings.

One…most churches would call themselves “one” (united, single, in agreement with themselves).
Holy…set apart – again, most churches would claim this
Catholic…universal…such as the invisible church
Apostolic…the church began with the apostles, which all Christian denominations claim to come from

Care to introduce some points and exactly how we know they’re valid criteria?

Those who study it are likely to join 1.3 billion of their brothers and sisters in the true Church.

Actually, I’ve been reading many articles by authors who left the RCC because they studied the history of the church.

Thus, the resort to games on the part of the Anything But Catholic crowd.

It’s not a game, and your disrespect for your fellow posters isn’t very Christian. I hope you’ll rethink that approach in your future posts. (After all, you wouldn’t want me to use derogatory terms like “Papist” or “paganist”, right?)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Satan will be making arguments against the Catholic Church until Jesus returns and casts all those arguments and the people who knowingly make them against the truth into Hell!

 

[PC_Master]

Satan will be making arguments against the Catholic Church until Jesus returns and casts all those arguments and the people who knowingly make them against the truth into Hell!

Thanks for the usual dose of rhetoric. And now, back to our regularly-scheduled thread.

(Jerry, no serious offense is intended – this is mostly me poking light-hearted fun, but I really do think this thread should be reserved for posts with at least a semblance of logical support to them.)

 

[savedsinner]

First, Protestants do not disagree on all doctrine. Admittedly they don’t agree on all doctrine, but as previously demonstrated, neither do Roman Catholics (or for that matter, Eastern Orthodox or any other denomination).

When you say that the Roman Catholics also don’t agreen on doctrine, are you referring to Catholic’s who don’t believe in things the church teaches like abortion and birth control and such?

If so, then that is not the same as the different Protestant denominations not agreeing on doctrine.

When a certain protestant denomination hold’s to a particular doctrine, it is because that is what it’s interpretation of scripture is pointing it to. So even if two different denominations have different doctrine, they both will point to scripture to support their doctrine. That is the beauty of Sola Scriptura. Neither denomination is going against what they believe scripture is teaching.
Sola Scriptura naturally leads to division.

But when a Roman Catholic hold’s to a different doctrine than the churches, they are going against the teaching of the church. Even if they point to scripture for the source of their differing doctrine, if it goes against the churhces interpretation of scripture, they are wrong.

To compare this to the different Protestant denominations is wrong and misleading. A better comparision would be if a Protestant, let’s say a Baptist, is leading a bible study at his church, and teaches that one is saved by faith and works. This would probably go against what the pastor of that local church teaches, and the pastor would more than likely tell that person to quit teaching that doctrine, or leave the church, even if that person truly believes that is what scripture is teaching.

The only similarities would be the dissention with in a certain denomination, not the different denominations themselves.

 

[SCALCO]

I think my original argument does not seem to hold up well in light of PCM’s comments. You could still say the same thing about a Baptist Church. The way I approached it was wrong because it can not be relied upon as a solid argument for the Catholic Church by itself.

One thing you don’t have in a Baptist Church or any other Church is a Pope. Everyone may agree on the essential docrines, but you still have many people making decisions whereas in the Catholic Church everyone must be in union with the Pope. I think that’s the difference that makes one interpretation possible in the Catholic Church and many possible in other Churches. Am I correct? I don’t know if I said this completely accurately. It’s early and I just woke up. I really don’t have time to carry this on, but here I am because it is too interesting.

 

[SCALCO]

The only similarities would be the dissention with in a certain denomination, not the different denominations themselves.

I was thinking of this before, but it never completely forumulated in my thoughts. Good point.

 

[Teflon93]

Sleight of hand? Would you mind explaining what you mean by that, and more importantly, explaining which parts of my post you find anything other than clear?

The sleight of hand is clear. It’s when you change the terms of the argument from unity of doctrine and authority to perfect obeisance.

1.3 billion Catholics recognize Pope Benedict XVI as Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Not all of us obey the Church perfectly, but all of us recognize the Pope and his authority. No Protestant can say the same, even those few who can point to any authority at all.

That’s the point you’re fudging as you torture “unity”.

Please excuse the exaggeration, but this is sounding a bit like “The Gospel According to Teflon93”.

And now you torture “gospel”. What’s the good news in pointing out your lack of clarity and logic?

Basically, yeah. (Though I would point out that the true church certainly does not include anyone who does not believe in the salvatory work of Christ, regardless of any denomination they may “officially” be in.)

And on what authority do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like you’re arguing that those who do not hold to the Nicene Creed are not members of the Church of Christ, but surely that cannot be, since the Creed is a tradition and a post-Scriptural one at that, right?

First, Protestants do not disagree on all doctrine. Admittedly they don’t agree on all doctrine, but as previously demonstrated, neither do Roman Catholics (or for that matter, Eastern Orthodox or any other denomination).

As seen elsewhere, the only doctrine Protestants even largely agree upon is the Nicene Creed, which they inherited from the Catholic Church. (And you’re welcome).

Protestants do not agree on salvation. (OSAS, baptism, etc).

Protestants do not agree on sacraments and how they are to be administered.

Protestants do not agree on authority and apostolic succession.

Protestants do not agree on interpretation of Scripture.

Catholics agree on all of these. These are the essentials, after all. Moreover, the Catholic Church speaks with one voice on all. Anybody who cares to can read the Catechism and see for themselves.

Any individual Catholic, including myself, who contradicts the Catechism or any Church teaching for that matter is in error and will be corrected. You might recall Christ mentioning the importance of this corrective function in Matthew. It does not exist in Protestantism, nor can it.

Second, I agree completely that two contradictory things cannot simultaneously be true. However, that doesn’t mean that none of them are true. Your argument is about as valid as me saying “Since the EO don’t agree with the RCC, neither can be the true church.”

Ahh, sleight of hand again. And no argument or logic presented, either.

The trouble, of course, is that every single Protestant community is 1,500 years too late to be the Church of Christ. The Catholic Church abides as she has since Pentecost, as Christ said she would. The problem is that other communities, including the Orthodox, no longer hew to that Church. The Orthodox of course are far, far closer than the Protestant, and much more unified as well.

As you seem to admire the Orthodox, feel free to convert. You’ll get your full complement of sacraments back and be far closer to the Church than you are today.

As you can see, I have addressed your argument directly (above), so point 3 is obviously false in regards to intentionally ignoring an argument. It is true, however, that RCs are not unanimous.

The sleight of hand again: unanimity is nowhere the standard. Truth is Truth if only one person speaks it, as we see with Moses. Indeed, that’s a key message of Scripture which seems to have eluded you.

You missed point 4 though:

1. Roman Catholic rebuttals completely ignore the argument that “Catholics aren’t unanimous” (per Teflon’s wording), and reiterate “Catholics are unanimous and Protestants aren’t”, without actually providing proof of their claim.

What distortion!

What Catholic has claimed Catholics are unanimous on anything?

What we have pointed out is that we are unified on matters of doctrine. What that means is that there is one Catholic doctrine. You’ll find it in the Catechism, among other Church writings. I can stand up in my pew at Mass and claim to be Pope, and precisely zero people will say, “Hey, that guy’s right! He is Pope!”

In Protestant circles, the same exercise leads to another schism due to the lack of authority and doctrine. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself where your youth minister is. That’s usually how it happens here in the Bible Belt.

 

[Teflon93]

This is the key to the argument. For your claim of unanimity to mean anything you have to establish 3 things (logically speaking):

1. That your church, and all its constituents, are actually unanimous in belief on every matter of faith, defined or undefined. As I’ve said, this is simply not true (and I provided an example).

1. That such unanimity actually is a sign of the true church (you can’t simply claim that it is without some support). You haven’t done this.

1. That this unanimity reflects the truth. Unanimity means nothing if it isn’t true. The whole world could be unanimous in saying that God does not exist, but that would not make it the case if in reality God does exist. Surely you see the logic of this, right?

Completely dishonest. I have never claimed, nor have I seen any Catholic claim, that Catholics are unanimous on anything (beyond perhaps the notion that Benedict XVI is Pope). Unity does not require unanimity, but merely acquiescence.

Have you ever served in the military?

“Unity of command” is a core concept of military command structure precisely analogous to the Catholic Church.

Surely, not every buck private agrees with his commanding general. It doesn’t matter. Unity of command exists by the mere fact that we recognize the general’s authority, follow his instructions, and are taken to task if we fail to do so.

It does not exist in the Protestant community except perhaps in spots at the congregation level. Any vestige of it evaporates beyond the denominational level.

It’s not a dodge at all – rather, it’s the root of the matter. Without this point being settled, the rest seems a moot point – a useless discussion. If unanimity is not important, the RCC loses one of its claimed points of authority. If unanimity is important, but the RCC doesn’t have it, the RCC fails again. So, let’s address this.

Oh, please. The Catholic Church has 1.3 billion adherents and has been around for two millennia. We’re not going anywhere. Your grandchildren won’t be part of the community you’re in today, if the odds are any indication. Some prayerful meditation on that might set you right.

I do. It’s just not the standard you claim I should hold it to. Now, if you’d like to discuss the qualifications of the true church, go for it. I’d like to see how you’ll support that without modern RCC writings.

There’s a search feature you could avail yourself of. This comes up all the time.

One…most churches would call themselves “one” (united, single, in agreement with themselves).
Holy…set apart – again, most churches would claim this
Catholic…universal…such as the invisible church
Apostolic…the church began with the apostles, which all Christian denominations claim to come from

Yes, and most churches are wrong and claim many silly things. Claims are cheap; proof is scarce. The Catholic Church boldly offers its proof. Read the Catechism. Then wonder where the Protestant equivalents are.

If you can’t even agree on enough long enough to write down what you believe…

Care to introduce some points and exactly how we know they’re valid criteria?

They’ve been enumerated by others above in this thread. Care to address them?

Actually, I’ve been reading many articles by authors who left the RCC because they studied the history of the church.

Who shall remain nameless lest they have any other obvious deficiencies.

It’s not a game, and your disrespect for your fellow posters isn’t very Christian. I hope you’ll rethink that approach in your future posts. (After all, you wouldn’t want me to use derogatory terms like “Papist” or “paganist”, right?)

Like you just did, you mean?

Seriously, PCM, how old are you?

I hope you’re very young, because otherwise you have little excuse for such foolishness.

 

[SCALCO]

You’re assuming that the whole church is to be completely and totally united in teaching and doctrine. This is the error. Only God himself possesses the complete understanding of the truth. Thus, it is to be expected that men will fail at times as they try to teach, and that God will pick up the pieces, so to speak.

Dear PCM,
I didn’t address this earlier, but it has now come back to me. I have been thinking about this issue and will just address this one issue. I know your time is valuable.

It sounds like you believe the church can teach error and then God will come back and fix it. That would seem to negate what Paul said about the church as the “pillar and truth”. Unless I am somehow taking it out of context, I don’t buy that the church can teach a false doctrine. How do you come to this understanding?

 

[PC_Master]

When you say that the Roman Catholics also don’t agreen on doctrine, are you referring to Catholic’s who don’t believe in things the church teaches like abortion and birth control and such?..If so, then that is not the same as the different Protestant denominations not agreeing on doctrine.

I understand. However, the key point that you guys emphasize is that your unity makes you the valid church. I think something’s being lost here, so let’s have a look at what “unity” means…

(From dictionary.com)
unity - oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement. Thus, for a church (a group of persons) to be united, they must be in agreement. Therefore, any member who disagrees on any point is not in unity on that point, by definition. If you’re thinking of another definition of unity, please don’t hesitate to share it.

When a certain protestant denomination hold’s to a particular doctrine, it is because that is what it’s interpretation of scripture is pointing it to. So even if two different denominations have different doctrine, they both will point to scripture to support their doctrine. That is the beauty of Sola Scriptura. Neither denomination is going against what they believe scripture is teaching.
Sola Scriptura naturally leads to division.

Correct, and the exact same thing can be applied to interpretations of the CCC, and any other beliefs in the RCC. In the previous thread regarding infallible statements, several individuals interpreted their listings as valid, based on some interpretation of the evidence, CCC and/or other RCC documents. Note that no document specifically defines which statements are infallible, and so the criteria given were interpreted in differing ways.

No one was guilty of going against what they believe the RCC is teaching, and yet there was not unity.

The only similarities would be the dissention with in a certain denomination, not the different denominations themselves.

The point in question seems to be whether or not the true church is united. You would argue that Protestantism is not that church because its various constituents do not agree with one another. Since it’s been conceded that many individual churches, and perhaps even some denominations do have a sense of unity, we can only certainly find disunity in doctrinal teaching by comparing one denomination to another. This is no more fair than saying the RCC isn’t true because it disagrees with the EO, or any other denomination.

Again, the question of unity ultimately comes back to an individual level, or it’s not unity.

One thing you don’t have in a Baptist Church or any other Church is a Pope. Everyone may agree on the essential docrines, but you still have many people making decisions whereas in the Catholic Church everyone must be in union with the Pope. I think that’s the difference that makes one interpretation possible in the Catholic Church and many possible in other Churches. Am I correct?

I think I understand where you’re going. However, it leaves two flaws I can see:

1. Sometimes the words of popes can be interpreted in different ways by well-meaning individuals. This breaks unity.
2. There are many issues where the pope has either not completely, or not at all clarified things.

While the idea of having a single leader who can declare things right or wrong is appealing, in practice it doesn’t remove the uncertainty on issues where the pope hasn’t spoken.

I really don’t have time to carry this on, but here I am because it is too interesting.

I know what you mean.

While I was going to respond to Teflon’s posts, I think I can sum it up this way – Teflon, what do you think unity means, exactly? Please provide a dictionary definition that shows how all members of the RCC are united while they disagree with one another over some issues. Thanks.

I know your time is valuable.

Thanks for recognizing that and getting to the point. It’s appreciated.

It sounds like you believe the church can teach error and then God will come back and fix it. That would seem to negate what Paul said about the church as the “pillar and truth”. Unless I am somehow taking it out of context, I don’t buy that the church can teach a false doctrine. How do you come to this understanding?

I think the common understanding of “pillar and support of the truth” is flawed. I’m still reading and studying that concept, so I’d rather not comment at the moment, but I do suggest you do some in-depth studies, comparing Greek word meanings, commentaries, etc.

 

[Teflon93]

While I was going to respond to Teflon’s posts, I think I can sum it up this way – Teflon, what do you think unity means, exactly? Please provide a dictionary definition that shows how all members of the RCC are united while they disagree with one another over some issues. Thanks.

Recognizing Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Christ on Earth is important, isn’t it? 1.3 billion people agreeing on something as important as this is non-trivial, certainly.

Practically speaking, unity as we use it in the religious context means recognizing the same earthly authority (Christ unfortunately has not returned to shepherd us directly; God prefers to deal with man through men) regarding doctrine in matters of faith and morals.

This is required if the Church is to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

But don’t take my word for it—my opinion is simply my opinion.